Plants, animals, land and vulnerable humans

[Philosphorous]

Hello all:I have been searching for an answer to a basic question but I have yet to find one.

 

This is a serious question. This is causing me great distress. My life is filled with guilt because of it.If we see nature as things that we can and should use (I mean past basic survival and comfort), what is stopping us from viewing vulnerable or 'weak" humans in the same light?For example: if someone buys land and clears it (let's assume it's forest), lots of plants and animals are going to be displaced or die. Let's also assume that person clears the land for a golf course or some other luxury purpose.Obviously, we are beyond Descarte, so we can agree that animals feel pain and emotional distress. When the land owner destroys their habitat, it will affect them.There is also some fledgling science that plants also react to negative circumstances: http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/plant-sufferingMany deny that plants and animals feel pain and/or suffer like humans, which I think it a little short-sighted.For this, let's assume they do feel pain. Some animals especially are very intelligent and have incredibly sophisticated ways of communication, structures, etc.We would never allow a land developer to displace or kill a severely mentally retarded human. It would violate the non-aggression principle.Assuming there are very intelligent animals and some mentally handicapped humans, one can assume that we cannot simply discard animals because they are not intelligent.Is it just because they are not human? What are the credentials to determine suffering?I feel like "strong" humans dominating and destroying animals and plants for luxury would lead down a slippery slope. How can we teach our children to not bully or harm when we do it to animals, plants, and the land for things beyond our basic survival?Further, since government has the guns, they dominate and oppress "normal" humans because they see us as livestock--lower than them. Well, WE see livestock as livestock--lower than us.

 

The answer couldn't possibly be because they're not human.

How can we reconcile exploiting nature because we can as acceptable, yet rail against the state for doing the same to us because they can?

 

Thank you.

[cobra2411]

Human's and animals are different enough that you can't use the same rational and logic for both. Sure, there is some overlap, but arguments made for or against one can not automatically be used for the other. This isn't to say we simply have a higher IQ, there is a fundamental difference. We can make up a rule for something, say the formation of a sentence, and use that rule to make an infinite number of different sentences. We can also combine multiple rules together and make sentences in a different language, or discuss biology in a philosophical setting. 

 

We also have the ability for abstract thought were we can perceive things that can not be sensed. We can rationalize, empathize and we employ ethics in our decision making. Sure, animals care for their young, but we actually study to find the best way to care for our young and how to fix things when our young don't get the best care while being raised. Sure, animals have language, but our language is at least 10 times that of animals. I could go on and on, but the key point here is that you can not automatically apply one principal to both classes - animal and human.  Now, with government, there is no fundamental difference, there are no government humans and non-government humans - we're all the same; therefore, you have to apply all principals equally. 

 

So, does this mean we should not respect animals and nature? I don't believe so, I believe that morally we have some responsibility to animals and nature. For one, I don't believe animals should be tortured or made to needlessly suffer. However, I am ok with slaughtering animals for food. I don't agree with anyone who pollutes the atmosphere needlessly. I have a heating and air conditioning business and the EPA has said that the chlorine molecule in refrigerant is evil. Sure it's the same chlorine molecule used elsewhere, but lock it up in an air conditioner it becomes evil and causes global warming... I don't believe that for a second; however, I do believe that since it's not naturally occurring we should not simply dump it into the atmosphere. So that's why I own the equipment to recover the refrigerant - in fact it was one of my largest single purchases I made when starting. 

 

So can I buy land and clear it for a golf course? Sure, it's mine. Can I clear it and dump medical waste right out in the open? I don't think anyone would want to have medical waste just thrown around, so I would say that's not a universally preferred behavior and therefor would not be a moral action to take. Now if I could demonstrate how I was going to process the waste so it wouldn't be a threat to anyone? Different story. 

 

As for changing the environment and it's impact on animals, lots of cities now support growing falcon populations. The high rise buildings are perfect for their nests. I believe there is more that could be done to peacefully co-exist with nature as well, but regulations many times get in the way. 

[dsayers]

Basically, your question is how are humans moral actors while animals and plants are not. The answer is the capacity for reason. We have the capability of determining an ideal, choosing behaviors based on that ideal, and anticipating the outcome of those behaviors.

[Philosphorous]

Basically, your question is how are humans moral actors while animals and plants are not. The answer is the capacity for reason. We have the capability of determining an ideal, choosing behaviors based on that ideal, and anticipating the outcome of those behaviors.

 

But doesn't that give us the obligation to protect nature rather than destroy it?

 

I guess the real question is where do we draw the line?

 

I mean... I REALLY like ice cream, and I like hot showers, and I like a warm bed. I don't particularly want to give any of that up, but in the system today, all of that stuff involves unspeakable violence toward nature. Sadly, about 99% of this is because of the state.

 

I'm just tired of feeling guilty for being alive. Perhaps I'm looking for a confirmation bias but I'd like to enjoy some part of life rather than feeling terrible because something got hurt to make it happen.

 

I was a vegan for a while but intellectually worked my way out of it. I would like to do the same with primitivism. I didn't invent any of the systems in place today, but the whole community is insistent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

I like some of it, and I feel terrible about that.

Human's and animals are different enough that you can't use the same rational and logic for both. Sure, there is some overlap, but arguments made for or against one can not automatically be used for the other. This isn't to say we simply have a higher IQ, there is a fundamental difference. We can make up a rule for something, say the formation of a sentence, and use that rule to make an infinite number of different sentences. We can also combine multiple rules together and make sentences in a different language, or discuss biology in a philosophical setting. 

 

We also have the ability for abstract thought were we can perceive things that can not be sensed. We can rationalize, empathize and we employ ethics in our decision making. Sure, animals care for their young, but we actually study to find the best way to care for our young and how to fix things when our young don't get the best care while being raised. Sure, animals have language, but our language is at least 10 times that of animals. I could go on and on, but the key point here is that you can not automatically apply one principal to both classes - animal and human.  Now, with government, there is no fundamental difference, there are no government humans and non-government humans - we're all the same; therefore, you have to apply all principals equally. 

 

So, does this mean we should not respect animals and nature? I don't believe so, I believe that morally we have some responsibility to animals and nature. For one, I don't believe animals should be tortured or made to needlessly suffer. However, I am ok with slaughtering animals for food. I don't agree with anyone who pollutes the atmosphere needlessly. I have a heating and air conditioning business and the EPA has said that the chlorine molecule in refrigerant is evil. Sure it's the same chlorine molecule used elsewhere, but lock it up in an air conditioner it becomes evil and causes global warming... I don't believe that for a second; however, I do believe that since it's not naturally occurring we should not simply dump it into the atmosphere. So that's why I own the equipment to recover the refrigerant - in fact it was one of my largest single purchases I made when starting. 

 

So can I buy land and clear it for a golf course? Sure, it's mine. Can I clear it and dump medical waste right out in the open? I don't think anyone would want to have medical waste just thrown around, so I would say that's not a universally preferred behavior and therefor would not be a moral action to take. Now if I could demonstrate how I was going to process the waste so it wouldn't be a threat to anyone? Different story. 

 

As for changing the environment and it's impact on animals, lots of cities now support growing falcon populations. The high rise buildings are perfect for their nests. I believe there is more that could be done to peacefully co-exist with nature as well, but regulations many times get in the way. 

 

Thank you. There's much to think about here.

[dsayers]

But doesn't that give us the obligation to protect nature rather than destroy it?

 

Obligation? No. You cannot survive without destroying nature. Nature cannot survive without destroying nature. The thing about nature is that until the point that it is eradicated, it is replenished and reproduced.

 

I'm sorry that you feel guilty for being alive. That must be horrible. I appreciate your sensitivity and agree that there are things we can do that would be better for our coexistence with nature on this planet. A lot of that is already in place and underway. Without a State, I agree that things will really take off in this regard.

 

The thing to keep in mind is that we are to the planet just as bacteria are to us. We benefit a great deal from all the "destruction" they bring to us. However, when they get out of hand, we can ravage them. The planet shows us every day who is in charge. We're just doing what we can to survive in the meantime. We can certainly do a lot better and I hope with people like yourself--particularly if they do not allow themselves to be consumed by irrationale--I have no doubt whatsoever that we will

[labmath2]

Human's and animals are different enough that you can't use the same rational and logic for both. Sure, there is some overlap, but arguments made for or against one can not automatically be used for the other. This isn't to say we simply have a higher IQ, there is a fundamental difference. We can make up a rule for something, say the formation of a sentence, and use that rule to make an infinite number of different sentences. We can also combine multiple rules together and make sentences in a different language, or discuss biology in a philosophical setting. 

 

We also have the ability for abstract thought were we can perceive things that can not be sensed. We can rationalize, empathize and we employ ethics in our decision making. Sure, animals care for their young, but we actually study to find the best way to care for our young and how to fix things when our young don't get the best care while being raised. Sure, animals have language, but our language is at least 10 times that of animals. I could go on and on, but the key point here is that you can not automatically apply one principal to both classes - animal and human.  Now, with government, there is no fundamental difference, there are no government humans and non-government humans - we're all the same; therefore, you have to apply all principals equally. 

 

To truly apply it equally, we would need a test for rationality that will place people in designated rationality spectrum that determine their rights. The mentally ill make up the lower spectrum and the genius will make up the upper echelons. 

[Philosphorous]

So can I buy land and clear it for a golf course? Sure, it's mine.

 

You wouldn't feel any guilt for killing or displacing all the animals living there?

 

I'm not trying to start an argument. If you wouldn't, I want to know how. I am envious of that position.

[cobra2411]

You wouldn't feel any guilt for killing or displacing all the animals living there?

 

I'm not trying to start an argument. If you wouldn't, I want to know how. I am envious of that position.

I was speaking figuratively. I like animals more than golfers... 

 

There's no reason that they have to be exclusive. I know around me, the deer are all over the golf courses, particularly at night. Those and cemeteries are the only real open spaces around.